Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The government had argued that Congress had the authority to pass the individual mandate as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce; the court disagreed with that analysis, but preserved the mandate because the fine amounts to a tax that is within Congress' constitutional taxing powers.

The announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the course of the November presidential and congressional elections.

A key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a penalty.

Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.

Other impacts will sort themselves out, once the court rules:

-- Health care millions of Americans will be affected – coverage for some, premiums for others. Doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers, and employers large and small all will feel the impact.

-- States -- some of which have moved ahead with the health care overhaul while others have held back -- now have decisions to make. A deeply divided Congress could decide to re-enter the debate with legislation.

-- The presidential race between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney is sure to feel the repercussions. Obama's health care law has proven to be slightly more unpopular than popular among Americans.

Not since the court confirmed George W. Bush's election in December 2000 -- before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street's dive and Obama's rise -- has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American.

Passed by Democrats along strictly partisan lines and still 18 months short of full implementation, the law is designed to extend health coverage to some 32 million uninsured people, ban insurers from discriminating against those with expensive ailments, and require nearly all Americans to buy insurance or pay penalties.

Its passage on March 23, 2010, marked the culmination of an effort by Democrats to overhaul the nation's health care system that dates back to Harry Truman's presidency. The most recent effort by President Bill Clinton in 1994 fell victim to Republican opposition. Since then, lesser changes have been enacted, including creation of a separate Children's Health Insurance Program in the states.

How can our government force us to buy a product and it still be constitutional.

I thought for sure the Supreme court would knoeck this down.

Good Lord can you Imagnine Sly right now??? Oh Boy

The argument is that everyone uses it so everyone should pay for it... The hospital I used to work at has done 900 million dollars in uncompensated care for 2 years running... And that is 1 hospital district... Half of 1 county in the US...

(Page 17 - They don't list page numbers for some reason, so you have to click the page corner 17 times)

On top of that the government has scaled back the amount of grants that they provide to the state hospitals... The last time I was down there they were laying off people off like crazy... In the healthcare industry... IN SOUTH FLORIDA...

I worked in the ER and I can tell you a lot of people had the means to pay for insurance, but instead chose to buy designer clothing and expensive phones and cars... If I had a dollar for every time a patient came in without insurance, but had an Iphone, Ipad or some other expensive toy I'd be a wealthy man... Something needed to be done to combat this...

I think this can be a start, but it's not complete... They now need to do more work on bringing down the cost of healthcare... My guess is they'll try and repeal the bill first... When that fails, maybe they'll get serious about bringing down costs...

June 28th, 2012, 2:27 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Health care ruling: Individual Mandate upheld by SCOTUS

Murtyle: wasn't it you that spoke of the abuse of the medical care system? I mean I made mention of the ambulance services in Atlanta, and I think you verified if I remember right.

The reason I say this is because the biggest problem isn't access to medical care as much as it is abuse of health care. I just had a case today where one of my residents took her granddaughter in to the ER for bug bites. Who do you think pays that tab?

I would double dog dare a hospital to turn some of these patients away for abuse of services. ER, by name and definition is EMERGENCY room, and I would hazard to guess the majority of the cases are not Emergent.

Having said that, people do have access to care, they just don't wish to pay for it. The same people that "Can't Afford" medical insurance, seem to be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol, cell phones with ring tones and endless minutes, x box complete with dozens of games, computers, oh and cable television, with a dvd player and all the bootleg movies they can store. Meanwhile they feast on welfare food, use government breakfasts and lunches programs, and collect tax returns for EIC based on x number of kids, meanwhile they rarely pay their fair share in. And please don't get me started on the illegals who do the same thing as soon as they cross the border.

Star Parker said it best, 50% of the country is surviving off the other 49% hard work.

It's official. Our government no longer has any checks and balances. The Supreme Court just quit on the American People. Our government is pretty much now officially socialist/communist.

June 28th, 2012, 11:10 pm

Murtyle

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pmPosts: 941Location: Hollywood, FL

Re: Health care ruling: Individual Mandate upheld by SCOTUS

WarEr4Christ wrote:

Murtyle: wasn't it you that spoke of the abuse of the medical care system? I mean I made mention of the ambulance services in Atlanta, and I think you verified if I remember right.

The reason I say this is because the biggest problem isn't access to medical care as much as it is abuse of health care. I just had a case today where one of my residents took her granddaughter in to the ER for bug bites. Who do you think pays that tab?

I would double dog dare a hospital to turn some of these patients away for abuse of services. ER, by name and definition is EMERGENCY room, and I would hazard to guess the majority of the cases are not Emergent.

You can't... EMTOLA won't allow that... If you take any government money and you come to the ER we have to see you... Hell one of the hospitals in this system violated EMTOLA on a technicality and after that they wouldn't let us ask for IDs up front to fear of being accused of discriminating on the basis of geographic region...

And yes the VAST majority of people who come to the ER aren't sick... They come because they know they'll get treated for whatever ails them at the time and they won't have to pay where they would at a private doctor (this is where the access issue came into play)... We had a terrible time collecting money for er services... Even copays....

That's why I can see some merit in the mandate... They can't get around that now... They have to pay something...

Quote:

Having said that, people do have access to care, they just don't wish to pay for it. The same people that "Can't Afford" medical insurance, seem to be able to afford cigarettes, alcohol, cell phones with ring tones and endless minutes, x box complete with dozens of games, computers, oh and cable television, with a dvd player and all the bootleg movies they can store. Meanwhile they feast on welfare food, use government breakfasts and lunches programs, and collect tax returns for EIC based on x number of kids, meanwhile they rarely pay their fair share in. And please don't get me started on the illegals who do the same thing as soon as they cross the border.

I dont know if they feast... Anyway, I mean what is the solution? Let them die or become deathly ill so then we have to save them, driving up costs even more? This is a complicated issue that touches just about every part of our society... It's got to be fixed and I think this does some good things... Not perfect, but I think its a start and they can improve upon it to make this workable...

June 28th, 2012, 11:52 pm

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

Re: Health care ruling: Individual Mandate upheld by SCOTUS

The ruling actually wasn't that bad. I know striking it down was the preferred option, but the ruling actually makes sense.

1 - The mandate is upheld as a tax. The ruling also specifically makes the commerce clause not applicable and will make sure that the government will never be able to force us to buy something in the future. It prevented the power that was at the heart of the possible problem. It also specifically makes all of the democrats liars, because they told the people it wasn't a tax. Now its on record.

2 - What was held unconstitutional is the expansion of medicare. The government can't force the states to add all the people to its rolls and be expected to cover the costs. Governors are going to have a choice and as close to bankruptcy as many are now, expect many states to be forced to not adapt it, which will end up creating fiscal issues with the entire program. You won't see the dems talk about this because this puts a huge wrench in the entire program. If all republican governors refuse, they can bankrupt the program. CA, NY, NJ, MI, etc.. can't afford it. The first year or two might be free, but after that its going to collapse unless they force huge tax increases across the board.

3 - As much as I hate to admit it, once Obamacare faced possible extinction by the SCOTUS, the race hasn't had much of a goal behind it, besides the economy. The only way to get rid of it now is to repeal it, so taking control of the senate as well as the presidency is the only way.

4 - You now have the 18-60 year olds getting hit with the biggest tax increase ever. Another campaign lie. The poor are exempt. The old already get medicaid. The biggest sector of unemployed are at the lower end of the age scale. They are also the people that use the healthcare system the least. You can argue its just like social security, but $3-$5 a week out of your check is a lot different than $30-$50 a week.

Some might call Roberts a traitor, but in fact he actually made this extremely ugly for the democrats to live with. Selling a tax hike in this economy is not going to go over well.

June 29th, 2012, 2:12 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Health care ruling: Individual Mandate upheld by SCOTUS

Murtyle: you asked me what the solution was, well my solution is pretty straight forward, and it requires someone with a spine and some ballz to institute it.

You don't work, you don't eat!

We use tag lines such as nanny state, and living on the plantation as a way of firing people up, but I've said it for a few years now. When the government pays for everything, there is NO desire to work. Why should they when all they have to do is keep their hand out. I am up to my eyes in it, and this is a small town of 40k people.

We have neighborhoods with graffiti, trash, abandoned housing, and so much more. If these projects were to truly get done, you have THOUSANDS of capable volunteers if channeled and led correctly could eliminate portions of budgets through volunteer labor. I do that as part of my job requirements too. With high school volunteers I saved my company 50K dollars in a capital improvment program, by leading and getting the work done.

Now I know that ACLU and all that will jump all over this, but then you just have someone with authority that tells them to shut up and crawl back in their hole.

We have much to do, and if they would be allowed to EARN their welfare money instead of receive it, we'd teach them some skills, teach them some integrity, beautify some neighborhoods, remove some dangers, and generate a community.

But don't count on it happening, 1. no one has the stones, 2. no one will punch the aclu in the mouth, 3. and no one has the stones to lead a program like this, and push people to work.

As for the Nannystate, let's ask the Souix and other Native Americans how well they've been living off of the government for 100 plus years. Substandard food, education, housing, and so on, and we wonder why abuse, drugs and alcohol, let alone general lawlessness and suicides lead the country. It's very sad, but that's where were headed because of this deceitful monster in the WH.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

June 29th, 2012, 3:14 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Health care ruling: Individual Mandate upheld by SCOTUS

They're not really forcing you to buy anything, they're just taxing you for not having something.

I think it's ridiculous that the administration said all along that this isn't a "tax," yet it was upheld only as a tax. The tax and spending power of Congress really is unlimited, and probably needs a Constitutional amendment to alter that, but how?

Aside from the obvious double speak about it not being a tax, but it is a tax, two things concern me about the opinion -1) With this opinion States can now opt out of the Medicade expansion. That was supposed to be the mechanism to get all of the "poor" people covered without charging them the "tax." With the current language and 26 States being against the bill (and likely many more after they see how much it is going to cost them at the State level), they don't have to expand their Medicade to cover these people. These people that literally have no way of paying for insurance are not going to get it for free via Medicade, and they're going to get hit with a pretty large penalty (and the SCOTUS already said that the "tax" has to be charged to everyone). They're going to get hit with a huge penalty and increase in their taxes right in the lower middle-class level, right where they were told that it shouldn't cost them one penny. That's going to piss some people off. Unfortunately it won't happen until 2013, but hopefully the Reps can get the point across in the Pres. race and oust Obama. If Obama is gone I think this Bill goes away. I do think the Reps will be successful in getting it repealed, but they have to do it BEFORE it takes effect. It will be too hard to unravel after 2013.

2) There is a line in the opinion regarding the medicade expansion that seems to render the whole Bill invalid. It says something to the effect of "and the inability to expand Medicare invalidates the Bill." It sounded like they upheld the constitutionality of the mandate, but invalidated the Bill. However, that's not how it's being taken/reported.